'File 35/86 III A. 74. Muscat Treaty' [‎149r] (316/548)

-3-
ixave been paxQ for the last 45 years or so and as the
Treaty is due tor revision in February next year, I do not
propose to raise any objection to their continued imposi
tion at present.
d» i.i egaid wo buate taxesj on the broad issue*
wnetnei Sritxsii subjects shouxd. pay taxes or not depends
on whether the right of exterritoriality, wnich they
enjoy under Article 13 of the Treaty of Friendship, Commer
ce and Navigation between Great Britain and Muscat, 1891,
(Aitchison VolXI, page 314), gives in itself total exemp
tion from all taxes. Tnis I assume to be trie view of His
<*
Majesty's Government since otherwise tnere would nave been
no need to pass tne special King's Regulation, (vide
correspondence ending witn my memorandum No. 1488 /18/54,
dateci tne Sind July, 1935,j in order to maice municipal
taxes applicable to Britisn subjects. If my assumption
is correet tnen no taxes can be applied to British subjects
unless tuey are specifically a-ilovved in tne Treaty,
6, However, as state taxes are being paid it remains to
examine eacn on its merits, since their continual payment
is bound to arise in connection with tne revision of the
Treaty. Tne Sultan will almost certainly press for con
tinued payment.
>
(f) Beit al Mai. In the time of Mohammed the term
®ait al Mai meant tne Government Treasury, i.e. the whole
of tne revenues of Government, In Muscat, however, accord
ing to tne Sultan, tne term denotes a particular form of
payment, namely, tne rental on crown-lands leased out.
1
The tux is not claimeu from persons, amongst whom there
are several Britisn subjects, who hold their lands in free
hold, but only from tnose who are in occupation of crown-
i
lands. Tills rental is one of tne payments to wnicii British
subjects/-